@Cyclefree - sorry, I missed your earlier response. So effectively it was one lot of judges overruling another judge. In that case a retrial would have made sense with the new direction given to the new jury.
Sometimes that does indeed happen.
I assume that the reason that couldn’t happen here is because, given that the evidence did not, as a matter of law, reach the level needed ie the “expert evidence was not capable of establishing causation to the criminal standard.” what could he be charged for.
The reason for overturning the verdict was that the only evidence available to the jury was expert evidence which did not meet the standard. In its absence, there was nothing for the jury to consider.
If it wasn't manslaughter, it couldn’t be murder. What alternative charge was there for which there was evidence capable of reaching the criminal standard required which the jury could consider.
This was quite an unusual case more akin to those cases where the judge throws out the case before it ever goes to the jury because the prosecution has failed to establish either an offence in law or prima facie the existence of evidence on which a jury could convict.
Yes. an application was made at the trial to throw it out on those grounds at the close of the prosecution case. The CCA effectively said it should have been granted by the judge. IIRC the expert evidence was that there was a 90% chance of a causal link between the actions (or inactions) of the defendant and the death of the victim. Enough for civil liability of course, but not close for a criminal conviction if there is no other evidence upon which a jury can make a proper inference to close the gap.
Criminal cases hate hard statistical numbers/probabilities unless they are in the millions/billions to one chance range- like DNA matches. Because anything much less than 100% on the prosecution side and you are scuppered.
The defence clearly didn't do a very good job in getting that message over to the jury irrespective of the judge's view.
I find it revealing that for an "eyewitness" hatchet job the author can't even come up with a single photo showing high risk behaviour in a high-risk place eg indoors. All he has is a couple of general shots of the high street.
Attended an Edinburgh Fringe show Appeared in an Edinburgh Fringe show Bought one of the Scottish piper dolls on the Royal Mile Thinking that Billy O'Connolly chap is BLOODY funny Being able to pronounce Kirkcaldy on the third attempt Loving Scotch Whiskey
You forgot being 16 without a decent education.
I seem to recall at some point in the past before you'd been driven mad by the prospect of Indy Ref II that you'd come round to the idea of 16 & 17 years olds having a vote. Sad.
I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other to be honest. My daughter was 16 at the time and campaigned very actively for Better Together along with some of her school mates. She was one of our best canvassers. Some of her class mates took the other side and they were all engaged. It seemed to me that they had a right to be heard. On the other hand there are a lot of kids of that age who have zero interest in politics and no understanding of the issues but that is the case at any age. It just seems a bit ironic to throw accusations of trying to rig the ballot when the SNP did exactly that. I had a lot more of an issue with EU residents being allowed to vote but my understanding is that that will not be repeated.
EU nationals resident in Scotland can still vote in Scottish elections, as legislated on by Holyrood.
Blimey, that really needs to be changed. There are over 200k EU citizens in Scotland but if they are not citizens of the UK, let alone Scotland, how on earth can they be allowed to vote on our future?
Talk about rigging....
If they are resident and meet the criteria why would they not get a vote, if they are not allowed to vote then same would apply to any other nationality including anyone born in England. So now we have unionists promoting blood and soil nationalism after the constant talk on here about how despicable and nasty it was, now that it suits unionists purpose it is suddenly brilliant.
Attended an Edinburgh Fringe show Appeared in an Edinburgh Fringe show Bought one of the Scottish piper dolls on the Royal Mile Thinking that Billy O'Connolly chap is BLOODY funny Being able to pronounce Kirkcaldy on the third attempt Loving Scotch Whiskey
You forgot being 16 without a decent education.
I seem to recall at some point in the past before you'd been driven mad by the prospect of Indy Ref II that you'd come round to the idea of 16 & 17 years olds having a vote. Sad.
I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other to be honest. My daughter was 16 at the time and campaigned very actively for Better Together along with some of her school mates. She was one of our best canvassers. Some of her class mates took the other side and they were all engaged. It seemed to me that they had a right to be heard. On the other hand there are a lot of kids of that age who have zero interest in politics and no understanding of the issues but that is the case at any age. It just seems a bit ironic to throw accusations of trying to rig the ballot when the SNP did exactly that. I had a lot more of an issue with EU residents being allowed to vote but my understanding is that that will not be repeated.
Surely they will not be European by that time David, they will all be Scottish or British.
If they take citizenship then I have no problem but EU citizens should not be voting in our referendums.
HY is in fine form today. Cheering on George Galloway. Well, well.
I am totally mystified as to why someone in Essex gets so worked up over the future of Scotland.
I'm mystified as to why you're mystified. Britain is a sovereign entity and many of us 'feel' British. You can love Scotland being part of that even if you've never visited. Should the Northern US 'get worked up' if the South decides to secede?
Comments
Media shitstirrers 'r' Sky.
https://twitter.com/OliverEverton1/status/1296224728127090688